Hi Aperol... You lucky thing... The D4 is an amazing camera.. Most definitely use the Nikon 16mm fisheye.. It's a good lens and FX.. You can use the 10.5mm and I am assuming, it will be like my D800, where it will automatically rolls back to DX mode when you attach it.. You can over-ride this but then you would have a heap of black..

eerr.. Not quality of lens but quality of picture I have read and the reports suggest the 10.5 is better... The quality of the actual lens is very fine... In fact the reports suggest it is.. But the 10.5 was made for the D90, its a perfect match up.. You have a 16mm full frame fisheye which will work on the D4 much better.. You will need less images so the end quality will be better since there are less photos to process, so less chance of errors.. Your shooting pattern will be very different too...

The Nikon 16mm is a nice lens but I personally would not have bought it for the D4. I think there are better lens for about the same money.. I looked into buying a new fisheye lens when I purchased my D800, but the 10.5 is an awesome lens so I just kept it and I use my same shooting pattern which Andrew M helped with and since my D800 switches to DX mode as soon as I put the fisheye on, so its not an issue..

Hey, if your computer can handle huge file sizes and you ever go with a VR Drive II, I would most defiantly go 35mm Prime.. But that has issues too.. however, for creating really high quality pano spheres as crisp as... this is the setup you need..

Have you already purchased the Nikon 16mm.. I thought you had a Sigma fisheye...

Aperol wrote:hithanks destiny! a friend told me that fisheye 10.5 is better then 16mm for the quality of the lens... true? false?

Aperol wrote:hithanks destiny! a friend told me that fisheye 10.5 is better then 16mm for the quality of the lens... true? false?

The Nikon 16mm fisheye it the lens used for Spheron and other highend digital panorama cameras/setups. It covers an extended image-circle - so the lenseÂ´s quality reaches beyond the usual circle-size . . which means it is very fine up to the edges because it has "headroom" by not squeezing all quality from the image-circle to the very borders . . like the 10,5mm does.

The 16mm is of an extraordinary optical quality for a fisheye.The 10,5mm also is a fine lens - but not comparable to the 16mm.

Using the 10,5mm on a fullframe camera means to waste resolution which means loosing optical quality. Basically you might use the 10,5mm "shaved" on a fullframe as a circular fisheye.But as said: that means wasting resolution.

ItÂ´s funny using a 10,5 fisheye on a D800 making it a crop-camera . . .

best, Klaus

Last edited by klausesser on Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

At the end of the day Aperol.. if you do not own either the 10.5mm or 16mm, then buy the 16mm.. It is more suited to the D4... But if you already own the 10.5... use that.. and give Klaus a laugh.. He needs some humour in his life..

Personally, if I could afford it anddddd if fitted my D800, I would buy the Cannon Fisheye.. I have seen some images captured using it.. awesome..

But if you are still undecided and searching.. this is the best source and you can then read reviews about the lenses.... Some are quite surprising...

Well, I used to use 2 rows of 6 photos at 14mm (every 60° in rotation and pointed 40° up and 40° down), and 3 rows of 12 at 24mm (every 30° in rotation and pointed 55° up, 0° level, and 55° down) when I shot with a manual head. This gave me good results. Now I shoot with a Panoneed and use .xml files. I'm still playing with my overlap to figure out what solutions work best with that. I do a lot of spherical stitching with PTGui and it doesn't seem to like blending a straight up zenith shot as easily as a row of photos near the zenith if my overlap is set too high (40% for example), however if I'm shooting interiors at 14mm I need a pretty significant overlap to have an area to clone out lens flare from multiple light sources. Outdoors at 24mm seems to work a lot better with very little overlap, say 20%. Still experimenting and learning...

aaronpriest wrote:Well, I used to use 2 rows of 6 photos at 14mm (every 60° in rotation and pointed 40° up and 40° down), and 3 rows of 12 at 24mm (every 30° in rotation and pointed 55° up, 0° level, and 55° down) when I shot with a manual head. This gave me good results. Now I shoot with a Panoneed and use .xml files. I'm still playing with my overlap to figure out what solutions work best with that. I do a lot of spherical stitching with PTGui and it doesn't seem to like blending a straight up zenith shot as easily as a row of photos near the zenith if my overlap is set too high (40% for example), however if I'm shooting interiors at 14mm I need a pretty significant overlap to have an area to clone out lens flare from multiple light sources. Outdoors at 24mm seems to work a lot better with very little overlap, say 20%. Still experimenting and learning...

20% overlap isnÂ´t "very little" at all when you set up your rig correctly. I use ALWAYS 20%. Many pano-cracks even recommand less than 20% when they use a fixed pattern on their manual heads.Using my 20mm and 35mm Nikon primes on 5D2 i never had any issue blending in a straight up Zenith shot.

Did you check how much the NPP shifts in this lens with focusing? Shooting indoors/short distances this might cause issues - independently from your overlap.On short distances even one millimeter mismatch can cause a problem! One millimeter is an average range with NPP-shifting in wide-angles.With wideangle-ZOOMS it might be even more critical to set the NPP correctly for different lenghts AND focusses.

best, Klaus

Last edited by klausesser on Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well this is it.. Using APG with a 14-24 set at +/-40° bunches up the image both on the nadir and zenith, as a consequence it doesn't like it.. Same with PTGui... I have read that a ultra wide angle lens is not really suitable.. I think for a flat single row 90° pano it would be perfect for interiors for a quick pano without using a fisheye..

Do you have an example of a pano using the 14-24....

Destiny...

aaronpriest wrote:Well, I used to use 2 rows of 6 photos at 14mm (every 60° in rotation and pointed 40° up and 40° down), and 3 rows of 12 at 24mm (every 30° in rotation and pointed 55° up, 0° level, and 55° down) when I shot with a manual head. This gave me good results. Now I shoot with a Panoneed and use .xml files. I'm still playing with my overlap to figure out what solutions work best with that. I do a lot of spherical stitching with PTGui and it doesn't seem to like blending a straight up zenith shot as easily as a row of photos near the zenith if my overlap is set too high (40% for example), however if I'm shooting interiors at 14mm I need a pretty significant overlap to have an area to clone out lens flare from multiple light sources. Outdoors at 24mm seems to work a lot better with very little overlap, say 20%. Still experimenting and learning...

If your computer can handle really large files sizes, I mean LARGE... then go for the prime... The 35mm prime is cheap but the 85mm is $$$...

But if your computer is just an ordinary PC or iMac.. most defiantly use the 16mm fisheye... Also, if you only have a Nodal Ninja 3 as I can see in your gear, then again, most defiantly go with the 16mm.. At least you will have few issue with the HDR you do... You really need a robotic head to use the primes, but could get away with it with a single exposure as long as the situation is not changing too much...

By the way, for panorama you can also use AIS non AF lenses.....much cheaper expecially second hand....and you don't autofocus using panorama anyway. Lens faloff and other errors are mostly corrected by using smaller apertures (needed for enough DOF anyway). And the focal length depends on the number of Mpixels your aiming for (duuuh). So a fisheye gives you about 70 Mpixel (give or take), a 35 1.4 will do about 500 Mpixel on a D4 (16 Mpixel).

Btw.: a 16mpx D4 for about 6000.-$ . . . . . i really donÂ´t see any sense in that regarding panorama-photography.

I really don't see any sense in that.....for all kinds of photography (except for sport and wildlife in which speed of the essence), since the arrival of the D800 and D800e.

A D800 (or the D800e) is half the price and much more suited to the job due it's (insane) resolution. With a FE you'll end up with about 150 Mpixels straight out of the box (7 shots). No other camera this side of 40.000 dollars can do that.